I'm with the OP on this one. Yes, prices fluctuate. However, I used to have a wedding anniversary that was the last week of January. I could get a dozen red roses for about $12. Two weeks later, around Valentine's Day, those same roses were advertised for $18, "on sale" from their regular price of $22. I called the florist out on it. She explained that as demand goes up, so does the price of their flowers. Understood, but it's deceptive to call the regular price $22, when I was buying them two weeks ago for $12!

So yeah, I get what the OP is saying.

Then in that sense, I might as well create a thread complaining about the sky being blue. Advertising that an item is "on sale" is basic marketing strategy. If the consumer feels like they're getting a "deal" they're more likely to buy an item. (Hence why JC Penny just fired their CEO for his single price strategy, and their sales dropping by an enormous amount)

I fail to see why marketing strategies and basic economics are such hard concepts to grasp -- or more importantly, why people (OP) feel the need to complain about them or place blame on others.

And as for the roses on Valentine's Day comparison -- while you may find that practice deceptive, I almost appreciate it. If I'm going to buy flowers on Valentine's Day, it's an unwritten rule that they will cost more. But if I somehow feel (in this case, based on the holiday markup) that I'm getting a better deal, then I walk away a bit happier with a purchase I needed to make.

So if you feel taken advantage of for buying a camera lens when it's first introduced, or an air conditioner in the middle of July, or paper clips during a paper clip shortage, perhaps you should analyze your buying strategy before blaming "the system" of capitalism. It's functioning just fine.

Those are pretty reasonable deals from arguably the most reputable dealer in the US. I don't see the harm in reporting decent (albeit not great) deals. Especially when many of us are always on the lookout for our next piece of glass.

Again, I got the lower price. That is not what this is about.

Good for you. I got the 85mm f/1.2L II for $1,799 earlier this year, and you don't see me griping about losing confidence in this forum or B&H. It's economics 101... Prices change on a daily basis.

Again, those are fairly reasonable prices, and I'm glad they were posted. Be glad you already got a good deal and leave it at that.

Not one single person is listening to what I am saying. I GOT the lower price. My lens was paid for at the lower price & will arrive Thursday. I found it offensive that the price was marked up, hyped as lower, my post pointing this out was blocked. Do you all work for cr rumors & B&H? Or is there someone else that finds raising prices and advertising it as the best deal offensive?

I'm listening to your point entirely, and as I've already asserted, you're overreacting. In checking B&H's website, the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is $2,049. Exactly what it was three weeks ago when I purchased it and exactly what you claim to have paid. But according to your logic, I should be insulted by CR posting a price that isn't lower. Oh wait, CR didn't post the price for the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. So what exactly is your complaint?

But I get it... you're one of those entitled folk that thinks CR owes you something for visiting this site. As neuro has already stated, it would be better for all of us if you would just delete your account instead of whining about marginal (or in this case, non existent) lens sale price differences.

I suggest you do what I did with my 24-70mm ii when I got it: Go out and use it, and quit your complaining.

Those are pretty reasonable deals from arguably the most reputable dealer in the US. I don't see the harm in reporting decent (albeit not great) deals. Especially when many of us are always on the lookout for our next piece of glass.

Again, I got the lower price. That is not what this is about.

Good for you. I got the 85mm f/1.2L II for $1,799 earlier this year, and you don't see me griping about losing confidence in this forum or B&H. It's economics 101... Prices change on a daily basis.

Again, those are fairly reasonable prices, and I'm glad they were posted. Be glad you already got a good deal and leave it at that.

Wait....Sigma has yet another revision of the body of this lens? Now it incorporates almost shiny pieces of plastic? Also the hood went away from the petal design? This is the third different look this lens has had...

Did you watch the video? Sigma has a 30mm f/1.4 for crop sensor bodies that the reviewer is comparing the new 35mm f/1.4 to. They are completely different lenses.

Those are pretty reasonable deals from arguably the most reputable dealer in the US. I don't see the harm in reporting decent (albeit not great) deals. Especially when many of us are always on the lookout for our next piece of glass.

I like to keep things relatively simple workflow wise: Photoshop. But for my entire process I have a home grown solution for photo storage/management (NAS over samba on a linux box with software RAID) and a custom web application which allows me to view/catalog my photos.

Software side, I like photoshop quite a bit. The problem with NAS and some of the workflow/catalog software (Aperture, Lightroom, etc) is that it can get really s-l-o-w, especially if you're over wifi (I often am). So using a web app to quickly access thumbnails in a gallery style layout is very useful. If I want to open an photo for further editing, I have a link which opens it in Photoshop. I've also recently started using the Nik plugin suite after Google put it on sale. Huge thumbs up for Nik, especially Silver Efex. But that's not necessarily a RAW processing platform.

Plus the added benefit (for me) of using NAS and a custom web app for cataloging is I can access my catalog anywhere over a browser or even an iOS app I wrote. </nerd>

But if you're looking for super simple and inexpensive, Lightroom is the way to go.

The way I see it, unless you absolutely NEED a piece of equipment you probably shouldn't finance. If photography is mostly your hobby, then paying an interest rate on a hobby isn't a great decision.

I don't know whether one can really say that ... people do a lot of weird stuff over their hobbies / stuff they don't really need ... like car(s) purchased on finance, for instance. Its just a personal preference.

I usually wait for a deal and/or pay out of my savings account.

Hence prefacing that sentence with, "The way I see it." It's certainly a matter of personal preference for me, but photography is a hobby. While I don't claim to be great with money, I try to finance as few things as I can (unless I can get some ridiculous interest rate). Big ticket items for most people need to be financed: Houses, cars, usually anything over a certain threshold. And while that lovely 600mm f/4 IS II would fall under the needing financing category for me, I simply can't justify it as I don't need it to sleep in, drive to work in, or make money with.

But, this is entirely a personal decision. If someone is comfortable putting a camera, lens, or other equipment on their credit card and paying it off monthly, then go for it. But that can quickly become a slippery slope... especially with photography, as I've found it can be quite addictive. :-)

My comprehensive homeowner policy covers personal possessions including all the camera gear. Even if you rent, you should still protect yourself with home insurance.

Also +1. I have a separate articles policy that covers all my gear for around $100/year. However, I will point out that while it's very inexpensive to cover gear this way, I've already decided I won't make a claim against a single lens or camera body unless the cost is above a certain threshold. Reason being that many insurance companies these days will look for any possible excuse to raise rates. So making a claim on a $1,000 lens doesn't make much sense if my homeowners rates go up by several hundred dollars a year because of it.

Also make sure your insurance company has gear make/model/serial number on file. I even have pictures of everything offsite in case of a house fire.

Thought I'd share one more since my previous shots didn't convey a lot of personality. Here's my golden doing one of her favorite things, rolling in the grass. (Ignore the dead February Michigan grass)

So after doing a lot of swapping out my new 24-70mm II the other day when I was performing some lens testing, I can kind of see what the OP is talking about. When I was behind the camera (tripod mounted, not much room to stand in front of the camera) it was more difficult to mount than my original 24-70mm. Trying to grip and twist resulted in zooming if I wasn't careful.

Of course, I'm always VERY cautious when mounting a lens, and make sure I hear and feel the click of a secured lens.

I still don't see how someone could accidentally hit the lens release button once the lens is attached, but everyone holds their camera differently.